Using the Narrative and Assessment Charts I need the narrative and assessment charts edited and aligned to the comments below. I need the assessment rubrics aligned to the standards of Mississippi Music Standards, NAfME and NASM Music Education Standards.
Each criterion should be aligned to state/national standards for content validity.
CUPASL has the rubric aligned to NASM IX.O.1-5.
NASM IX.O only goes up to 3. The latest version (2019-2020) is posted at https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/01/M-2019-20-Handbook-02-13-2020.pdf
Identify what music standards goes with each criterion/rating indicator.
Criterion indicators #9-10 has multiple MS CCR standards associated with it. Pick one that best fits the criterion.
Rubric is identified as a 1 to 3-point scale for spring 2020. Was the spring 2020 converted to the 0 to 5-point scale for the purposes of reporting? Or did you mix the 0 to 5-point scale with the 0 to 3-point scale in the data chart? If you did mix the two, you will need to convert either the F2018, Sp2019, F2019 to the 0 to 3-point scale or convert the Sp2020 to the 0 to 5-point scale.
Jury Evaluation
Data Chart #1
The number passed and number failed should not be entered as a decimal number unless you have people enrolled at JSU that are only 0.6 of a person. This should be entered as whole numbers.
If 10 people attempted the jury, how many passed the jury? How many failed? To get the pass rate, divide the number of people who passed by the total number who took the jury. (Example. 10 people took the jury, 7 passed (70%) and 3 failed (30%). The percentages going across should add to 100% for that academic year. Then for the baseline data, add the total number that passed for the three year and divide by 30. This will give you the pass rate for the three years. Same with the number that failed.
Data Chart #2
No need to report individual charts with the number of each score. Use the chart that I provided in prior message. It reported the means and the range for all three academic years in a simple chart based on the 0 to 5-points in the rubric.
Praxis
Data Chart #1
N= number of candidates taking the praxis test (ex. 2017-2018 MDE Annual report there were 4 completers).
Mean = average. According to the MDE Annual report, there were 4 completers for 2017-2018 with scores of 169, 164, 163, 166. M=165.5.
Range. The range of scores for 2017-2018 was 163 (lowest score) – 169 (highest score)
% passed. All four passed 100%.
In 2018-2019, there was 1 completer reported, M=171, Median=171, Range =171, 100% pass rate.
Sorry, since JSU has not reported the completers for 2019-2020, I cannot give you that number.
Data Chart #2
The column for EPP is the percentage of correct scores. I believed you entered these as the avers of the scores instead of the percent correct. So for 2017-2018, the “8” in the Music History & Lit is the average score so available would be 57.14 (8 divided by 14).
Next down listed is 11 (divided by 17) would be 64.71 for Theory & Comp.
Next down listed is 15 (divided by 23) would be 65.22 for Performance.
Next down listed is 34 (divided by 47) would be 72.34 for Ped, Prof Issues, & Tech.
Fixing this chart will let you know how JSU rates in the state and nationally. Looks like the Ped, Prof Issues, & Tech is above both state and national percentage while the other categories are below state and national.

The post Using the Narrative and Assessment Charts I need the narrative and assessment ch appeared first on homework handlers.

Rejuvenate an existing, but flawed change process focused on increasing equity in instruction and/or assessment: Select a conflict situation at your school, district, or work site that resulted from the introduction of a new change initiative, but has stalled or created disequilibrium and now requires resolution. Identify the change that has caused issues. Provide a brief background or history of the issue including: Whose idea was it? Was it a consensus or forced initiative? Who “bought in” and who did not? Clarify the situation and determine the true roadblocks by identifying such items as the driving forces, restraining forces, personal agendas, specific interest groups or cliques, varying agendas of the major players, etc. You decide. You may also want to consider the following: Environmental forces (national, regional, state, or community level forces driving change at your school) Strategic imperatives (action your school or district needs to take) Organizational imperatives (changes needed in the school or district) Cultural imperatives (school or district norms that need to change) Leader and employee behavior (specific behaviors that need to change) Mindset (assumptions, beliefs, and mental models that need to change) Next, go to the “balcony” like David King at Kennedy High to gain insight. What do you see? Which frames are paramount and which are lacking? Now you are ready to create a strategy based on your growing knowledge of organizational change and leadership to remedy the stalemate or disequilibrium that includes a minimum of: 5-6 action steps based on your knowledge of theory and framing Address such items as what your role will be. Who else will be involved? From which frames and organizational theorists will you borrow the heaviest? Consider Kotter’s (1996) 8 steps for leaders outlined in earlier learning activities. How might these help? Lastly, what intimidates you the most about becoming an agent of change and enacting this plan? Attached initial rough publish to help assist with this. This is to build off of this initial publish. Link to review four frames by Bolman and Deal: https://www.businessballs.com/leadership-models/four-frame-model-bolman-and-deal/
Attached pages from required text (Bolman & Deal, 2017 — Reframing Organizations)
Use the attached paper as your outline for how to revamp this paper to create a sharp, detailed change plan.

The post Rejuvenate an existing, but flawed change process focused on increasing equity i appeared first on homework handlers.